大乘玄論 4.6.1

4.6.1

釋道門第三。 問：《釋論》云「菩薩有二道：一波若道、二方便道。 」云何為二道耶？ 答：有人言，波若道即實相波若，方便道謂方便波若。 是事不然。 大判二道，以為三例：一全依梵本，應言波若道、漚和道。 二具開此言，應云慧道、方便道。 三彼此合目，如論所明，波若依彼之稱，方便存此之名。 今若言實相波若、方便波若，皆稱波若，即二道不分。 又實相波若是境、方便波若是智，豈可以境智為二道耶？ 若言實相波若是實慧、方便波若是方便慧，以為二道。 是亦不然。 論云「波若、方便以為二道」，何得皆稱波若？ 若爾，二道俱應名方便。 又立三波若，皆就波若道中論之：一實相波若、二觀照波若、三文字波若。 實相能生波若，故名波若。 文字能詮波若，以所詮為稱，亦名波若。 三觀照當體，名為波若。 問：何故但立此三，不多不少？ 答：凡有三義，實相為能生之境、觀照為所生之智、文字為能詮之文，要具此三，不得增減。 又合此三以為三雙：實相為境、觀照為智，謂境智一雙。 境智為所詮、文字為能顯，能所一雙。 境智則自行、為眾生說故有文字，自行化他一雙。 二者實相即無為波若，觀照即有為波若。 所以然者，論云「諸法實相者，心行言語斷，無生亦無滅，寂滅如涅槃。 」實相既無生滅，故是無為波若。 實相能生觀智，觀智始生，故名有為波若。 一切唯有此二，詮此有為無為，名文字波若。 文字從所詮為名，通為無為； 當體明之，有為所攝。 三者實相是無為波若，文字是有為波若，觀照亦有為亦無為。 菩薩累猶未盡，即未勉生滅，故名有為。 佛即無惑不淨、無復生滅，故是無為波若。 問：何故有煩惱即有生滅耶？ 答：以有煩惱，不得了悟本自無生滅，故有生滅。 若無煩惱，即悟觀心本自無生，即是無為，不言轉有為波若故成無為也。 此三門總攝境智為無為理教因果，故但立三也。 問：亦得實相為實慧、觀照為方便以不？ 答：若以佛性為實相，本自有之，名為實慧； 觀照修習始生，名為方便。 此非照有為方便、照空名為實。 若權若實，始有之義皆名方便，本有佛性覺照之義名為實也。 地論人，真修波若即本自有之、緣修波若即修習始起。 性淨涅槃、方便涅槃亦爾，此猶是舊本始之義。 問：與今何異？ 答本性清淨名為本有，約緣始悟本淨故名始有耳。 然正道未曾本始，亦非垢淨。 又舊宗為無為決定是二； 今明未得菩提，即無為成有為； 若得菩提，即有為成無為。 豈離有為別有無為？ 如前釋也。 為無為例然，諸法本性清淨故名無為，未悟本無生滅名有為，然波若未曾為無為也。 問：波若道既開三，方便道亦有三不？ 答：通亦有，謂境、智、文字。 但實慧從境立名，故必須辨境； 方便從巧受稱，故不須辨境； 而文字即通二道也。 然方便雖不從境立名，實照世諦之境，即亦具三也。 觀照既有為無為，方便亦爾。 如來二智即是無為，菩薩二道猶是有為。 問：實相波若唯是境？ 亦得是智？ 答：有人言，實相波若但是境名也。 《釋論》四十三卷「問曰：前說智慧名波若，今何故說空為波若？ 答：果中說因，如云食布。 」此義應是因中說果，而言果中說因者，逆討明義，智慧正是波若。 實相能生智慧，智慧是實相之果，而於智慧說實相為波若，故言果中說因。 南北同此釋也。 有人言，佛有三種：一者法身、二者報身、三者化身佛。 實相即法身佛，實相可軌，名之為法。 此法有體，故名為身。 而實相非佛，能生佛故，所以名佛。 二者報身，即修行會實相理。 實相既常，報佛亦常，以法常故諸佛亦常。 三化佛，即應物之用，此北土論師釋也。 有人言，修空無相，會理圓通，心意識滅煩惱清淨，此無為波若即是實相。 若有行境未勉生滅，即菩薩六度，得十地差別，名有為波若。

The third [section], Explaining the Paths. Question: The Treatise states: "A bodhisattva has two paths: first, the path of wisdom; second, the path of expedient means." What are these two paths? Answer: Some say that the path of wisdom is wisdom as true mark, and the path of expedient means is wisdom as expedient means. This is not so. In general classification, the two paths may be distinguished in three ways: First, following the Sanskrit completely, one should say the path of prajñā and the path of upāya. Second, opening both in Chinese, one should say the path of wisdom and the path of expedient means. Third, combining the two, as explained in the treatise: "wisdom" follows the Sanskrit term, while "expedient means" preserves the Chinese word. Now, if one speaks of "wisdom as true mark" and "wisdom as expedient means," both are termed "wisdom," so the two paths would not be differentiated. Moreover, wisdom as true mark is an object, and wisdom as expedient means is gnosis; how could object and gnosis be treated as the two paths? If one says that wisdom as true mark is real wisdom and wisdom as expedient means is expedient wisdom, taking these to be the two paths, this also is not so. The treatise says, "Prajñā and upāya are the two paths." How could both be called prajñā? If so, both paths should also be called expedient means. Furthermore, the establishment of the three wisdoms is discussed entirely within the path of wisdom: first, wisdom as true mark; second, wisdom as contemplation; third, wisdom as written letters. The true mark can produce wisdom; hence it is called wisdom. Written letters can express wisdom, taking their name from what is expressed; hence they are also called wisdom. Third, wisdom as contemplation, in its intrinsic reality, is called wisdom. Question: Why are only these three established, neither more nor less? Answer: There are three meanings: the true mark is the object capable of producing, contemplation is the gnosis produced, and written letters are the text capable of expressing. One must have these three, neither increased nor decreased. Again, combining these three produces three pairs: the true mark is the object, and contemplation is the gnosis—this is the pair of object and gnosis. Object and gnosis are what is expressed, and written letters are what can reveal them—this is the pair of what reveals and what is revealed. Object and gnosis pertain to one's own practice, while written letters exist for the sake of explaining to sentient beings—this is the pair of one's own practice and transforming others. Second, the true mark is unconditioned wisdom, and contemplation is conditioned wisdom. Why so? The treatise says: "The true mark of all phenomena is that mental activity and speech are severed, unborn and unceasing, quiescent like nirvāṇa." Since the true mark is devoid of arising and ceasing, it is unconditioned wisdom. The true mark can produce contemplative gnosis, and contemplative gnosis is newly arisen; hence it is called conditioned wisdom. In all things there are only these two; that which expresses this conditioned and unconditioned is called wisdom as written letters. Written letters take their name from what they express and encompass both conditioned and unconditioned; considered in their own intrinsic reality, they are subsumed under the conditioned. Third, the true mark is unconditioned wisdom, written letters are conditioned wisdom, and contemplation is both conditioned and unconditioned. Since the bodhisattva's burdens are not yet exhausted, they have not yet escaped arising and ceasing; hence it is called conditioned. The Buddha has no affliction that is not purified, and has no further arising or ceasing; hence it is unconditioned wisdom. Question: Why is there arising and ceasing when there are afflictions? Answer: Because there are afflictions, one cannot comprehend that there is fundamentally no arising and ceasing; hence there is arising and ceasing. If there are no afflictions, one comprehends that the contemplative mind is fundamentally unborn, which is the unconditioned; this does not mean that by transforming conditioned wisdom it becomes unconditioned. These three approaches totally subsume object and gnosis, conditioned and unconditioned, principle and teaching, cause and fruit; therefore only three are established. Question: Can the true mark also be real wisdom, and contemplation be expedient means? Answer: If one takes buddha-nature to be the true mark, fundamentally possessed from the beginning, it is called real wisdom; contemplation, which newly arises through cultivation and practice, is called expedient means. This does not mean that illuminating the existent is expedient means and illuminating emptiness is real. Whether provisional or real, whatever has the meaning of newly arising is called expedient means, and the meaning of fundamentally possessing buddha-nature as awakening illumination is called real. The Daśabhūmika masters hold that wisdom through true cultivation is fundamentally possessed, whereas wisdom through conditioned cultivation newly arises through practice. The same applies to naturally pure nirvāṇa and expedient nirvāṇa; this is still the old theory of root and beginning. Question: How does this differ from the present view? Answer: The fundamental nature being pure is called "fundamentally possessed," and newly awakening to this fundamental purity in accordance with conditions is merely called "newly possessed." However, the correct path has never had root or beginning, nor is it defiled or pure. Furthermore, in the old traditions, conditioned and unconditioned are definitively two; we now clarify that before attaining bodhi, the unconditioned becomes the conditioned; when one attains bodhi, the conditioned becomes the unconditioned. How could there be an unconditioned separate from the conditioned? It is as explained earlier. The same applies to conditioned and unconditioned: all phenomena are called unconditioned because their fundamental nature is pure, and they are called conditioned because one has not yet awakened to fundamental non-arising and non-ceasing; yet wisdom has never been conditioned or unconditioned. Question: Since the path of wisdom is divided into three, does the path of expedient means also have three? Answer: Generally speaking, it also has them: namely, object, gnosis, and written letters. However, real wisdom takes its name from the object, so one must differentiate the object; expedient means receives its designation from skillfulness, so one need not differentiate the object; and written letters apply to both paths. Nevertheless, although expedient means does not take its name from the object, it actually illuminates the cognitive object of conventional truth, so it also possesses the three. Since contemplation is both conditioned and unconditioned, expedient means is also like this. The Tathāgata's two gnoses are unconditioned, whereas the bodhisattva's two paths are still conditioned. Question: Is wisdom as true mark only the cognitive object? Or can it also be gnosis? Answer: Some say that wisdom as true mark is only the name of an object. Fascicle forty-three of the Treatise states: "Question: Previously you explained wisdom as prajñā; why do you now speak of emptiness as prajñā? Answer: The cause is spoken of within the fruit, as when one speaks of 'eating cloth.'" This meaning should be speaking of the fruit within the cause; yet it says "speaking of the cause within the fruit" because, investigating backwards to clarify the meaning, wisdom is properly prajñā. The true mark can produce wisdom, so wisdom is the fruit of the true mark; yet speaking of the true mark as prajñā in relation to wisdom is why it says "speaking of the cause within the fruit." Both North and South agree on this explanation. Some say that the Buddha has three kinds: first, the dharmakāya; second, the saṃbhogakāya; and third, the nirmāṇakāya Buddha. The true mark is the dharmakāya Buddha; because the true mark can serve as a model, it is called dharma. This dharma has an essence, so it is called a body. Yet the true mark is not the Buddha; because it can produce the Buddha, it is called Buddha. Second, the saṃbhogakāya Buddha: through practice, one accords with the principle of the true mark. Since the true mark is eternal, the saṃbhoga Buddha is also eternal; because the Dharma is eternal, all Buddhas are also eternal. Third, the transformed Buddha, which is the function of responding to beings. This is the explanation of the northern masters of the treatises. Some say: cultivating emptiness and signlessness, completely penetrating the principle, with mind, thought, and consciousness extinguished and afflictions purified—this unconditioned wisdom is precisely the true mark. If there are active cognitive objects and one has not yet escaped arising and ceasing, this constitutes the bodhisattva's six perfections, attaining the distinctions of the ten grounds, which is called conditioned wisdom.